From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5864 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2011 09:47:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 5851 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jun 2011 09:47:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_JS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:47:02 +0000 From: "jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/49467] Enhancement: Intrinsic to read CARRY and OVERFLOW flags (where applicable) X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Resolution Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:47:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01726.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49467 Joseph S. Myers changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Joseph S. Myers 2011-06-20 09:46:59 UTC --- The proposed interface, with its references to global flags set by operations that otherwise have values but no side effects, is not a good match to the nature of C as a high-level language; the source code arithmetic operations should not be presumed to have any particular correspondence to machine instructions that might set flags. Instead, I proposed a more appropriate interface for operations with explicit overflow behavior in bug 48580. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 48580 ***